MA7-09497

MA7-09497

Panel accepted claimant's membership in a particular social group but found no evidence of torture involving state actors and concluded, based on testimony and documentary country evidence, that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would face persecution throughout Mexico; an internal flight alternative (e.g., Guadalajara) existed and it would not be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there; therefore the claim was rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Citation
MA7-09497
Parties
Claimant: XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX; Decision Maker / Panel Member: Pharès Pierre; Claimant's Counsel: Me Claudia Aceituno; Tribunal Officer: Annie Lemaine; Designated Representative: N/A; Minister's Counsel: N/A
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing
Outcome
Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.
Legal Topics
Internal Flight Alternative, Sexual Orientation, Persecution, Credibility, Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, State Responsibility
Source Language
English
Immigration Refugee Law Administrative Law Human Rights Internal Flight Alternative Sexual Orientation Persecution Credibility +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Claimant

Pharès Pierre

Decision Maker / Panel Member

Me Claudia Aceituno

Claimant's Counsel

Annie Lemaine

Tribunal Officer

N/A

Designated Representative

N/A

Minister's Counsel

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (irpa Ss.96 97) / Decision of Refugee Protection Division Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97(1) IRPA
  3. 3 Whether claimant suffered torture or persecution involving state actors

Ratio Decidendi

Panel accepted claimant's membership in a particular social group but found no evidence of torture involving state actors and concluded, based on testimony and documentary country evidence, that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he would face persecution throughout Mexico; an internal flight alternative (e.g., Guadalajara) existed and it would not be objectively unreasonable for him to relocate there; therefore the claim was rejected under ss.96 and 97 IRPA.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; not a Convention refugee under section 96 IRPA and not a person in need of protection under subsection 97(1) IRPA.